Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

The question of Jake Long...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Miami Dolphins
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ProudDolphan47


Moderator
Joined: 06 Dec 2007
Posts: 5626
Location: Lancaster, PA
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pass protection is much more of a high science than run blocking, so its hard to quantify the responsibilities in a ZBS vs. a MBS. There is gap protection, slide protection, man protection. There are line calls for stunts, blitz pickups, overloads, swaps and passing off rushers. That's how Michael Johnson got his sack on Sunday...the not keen eye says Michael Johnson lined up across from Long, got upfield and then cut underneath. But it was what looked to be either a slide or man pass pro set, but Geno Atkins loops outside and Incognito followed. (That's what leads me to guess it was a 'mo' or man blocking call). But when Atkins vacated the B gap and Incognito followed, Long broke off to pick up the stunt, while Incognito was so far off his set and overtop of himself that he had no anchor and no change of direction. The end result is Johnson, Long's original man but NOT who he was ultimately responsible for, eats up the sack.

There is so much depth and complexity to pass protection, no one can sit here and say they know the fine details unless they're on the Dolphins staff.
_________________
-Proud 2011 Inductee to FF's Miami Dolphins RoH

Warpticon wrote:
I think Mike Wallace made a mistake because *throws turd at wall*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phinmun


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 2231
Location: South Carolina
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now we're talking! Very Happy

Keep the info coming guys. This is useful stuff! If there's any substance left in these talks, this is it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clutch


Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Posts: 2240
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would hardly say that our OLine has been such a liability that it would be absurd to pay Jake 10-12 mill per. Why turn it in to the Arizona Cardinals Line? I like watching Tannehill on his feet, not his back.

Again, Jakes play hasn't cost this team anything. That line is doing a remarkable job.

Jakes money isn't going to limit us from anything. Unless we want to start taking short cuts by signing guys like Mario Williams. We have alot of draft picks and a few spots to get some starters and more importantly, depth.

Some positions just cost cash. Plain and simple. I can cut other positions before a LT. As a unit, our Oline isn't costing us that much. Our QB isn't costing us that much, our WR's aren't costing us that much. In fact I can't really think of who would cost us that much...Wake? Money can't even be an issue.

We could use another DE, unless Vernon steps up. We could use two more CB's. Possibly a replacement for Clemons. And, obviously, another WR. I am still holding out hope for Egnew, I know they are coaching up, so I would like to see him on the field by game 9.

Before I get on board with losing Jake. Where are we in the Salary Cap world? We must have boatloads of spending cash available. I know that Smith, Long, Starks and Hartline are FA's. I don't think we need to go outside of the organization to spend a bunch of cash. I would like to sign our own and continue to build through the draft.

I would have to think that Ireland will be given another year, judging by the way things are going so far this season.
_________________
- "Who, I love Rich Camarillo." Quote from the Fish's play by play crew.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ProudDolphan47


Moderator
Joined: 06 Dec 2007
Posts: 5626
Location: Lancaster, PA
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clutch wrote:
I would hardly say that our OLine has been such a liability that it would be absurd to pay Jake 10-12 mill per. Why turn it in to the Arizona Cardinals Line? I like watching Tannehill on his feet, not his back.

Again, Jakes play hasn't cost this team anything. That line is doing a remarkable job.

Jakes money isn't going to limit us from anything. Unless we want to start taking short cuts by signing guys like Mario Williams. We have alot of draft picks and a few spots to get some starters and more importantly, depth.

Some positions just cost cash. Plain and simple. I can cut other positions before a LT. As a unit, our Oline isn't costing us that much. Our QB isn't costing us that much, our WR's aren't costing us that much. In fact I can't really think of who would cost us that much...Wake? Money can't even be an issue.

We could use another DE, unless Vernon steps up. We could use two more CB's. Possibly a replacement for Clemons. And, obviously, another WR. I am still holding out hope for Egnew, I know they are coaching up, so I would like to see him on the field by game 9.

Before I get on board with losing Jake. Where are we in the Salary Cap world? We must have boatloads of spending cash available. I know that Smith, Long, Starks and Hartline are FA's. I don't think we need to go outside of the organization to spend a bunch of cash. I would like to sign our own and continue to build through the draft.

I would have to think that Ireland will be given another year, judging by the way things are going so far this season.


We're within 7 million dollars of the salary cap. We DO have 18 million in dead cap between Marshall, Vernon Carey, Vontae, Garrard, Yeremiah Bell, Tim Dobbins, Naanee and others that will expire at the end of the year, and expiring salaries include Long's 12.8 M, Bush's 6 M, Starks' 5 M, Fasano's 4.5M, ect. So 7 plus 18 plus 19 is approximately 45-50 million dollars in this upcoming offseason for salaries.

Notable names in the free agent class look like:

LT Jake Long
RB Reggie Bush
DT Randy Starks
CB Sean Smith
WR Brian Hartline
TE Anthony Fasano
SS Chris Clemons

A lot of that free cap is going to be coming right back to retain our big time players. Jake wants Joe Thomas money. And doesn't deserve it. 13-14 Million dollars can get you two players on the Randy Starks/Sean Smith level, or three players in the Paul Soliai, Davone Bess, Richard Marshall, Jared Odrick ball park.

Is this team THAT deep? Is this team worthy of stepping up and eating 30% of it's cap space into one guy, who quite frankly isn't playing up to the money he's already getting paid? No, not in my mind.
_________________
-Proud 2011 Inductee to FF's Miami Dolphins RoH

Warpticon wrote:
I think Mike Wallace made a mistake because *throws turd at wall*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Russ57


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 692
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think there are a lot of assumptions as to what Jake wants for money. He doesn't deserve to be the highest paid LT and I don't think he feels he does. However he certainly does deserve top ten money. Problem is top ten money is a pay cut for him. It is hard to swallow how a player can be a pro bowler every year and be expected to deserve a pay cut. In many ways both him and Miami are victims of the old pay scale.

Denver is going to have a problem with their LT too. Jake has done better in his four years than Clady has. We all know what Clady turned down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dolphinologist


Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 5593
Location: New York
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clutch wrote:
I would hardly say that our OLine has been such a liability that it would be absurd to pay Jake 10-12 mill per. Why turn it in to the Arizona Cardinals Line? I like watching Tannehill on his feet, not his back.


After 13 years under the same roof with the same woman, I recognize this tactic, like the dolphins' logo. You are talking in extremes to make your point appear like obvious logic. And no one else is using those extremes. For example no one is calling Jake Long a "liability". But I had to face the same reality I faced with Ted Ginn. 10 dropped passes are not the end of the world and neither is dropping over 30 spots in your lineman rankings. But when you do the production to salary to position job description analysis, you realize that you can get a more than adequate job done with a much less expensive player. There was a time when we needed the power of Jake Long to physically dominate his man assignment. Now we need athleticism and quickness as opposed to that power. Is jake long athletic and quick ? Sure, but is his athleticism and quickness worth 10-12 million ? Only to folks like you who either don't or won't understand the difference in skill set requirements for this scheme.

Clutch wrote:

Again, Jakes play hasn't cost this team anything. That line is doing a remarkable job.


There you go with that extreme again. "Remarkable" ? There is nothing remarkable about this team.

Clutch wrote:

Jakes money isn't going to limit us from anything.


wrong ... here's why

ProudDolphan47 wrote:

13-14 Million dollars can get you two players on the Randy Starks/Sean Smith level, or three players in the Paul Soliai, Davone Bess, Richard Marshall, Jared Odrick ball park.
Is this team THAT deep? Is this team worthy of stepping up and eating 30% of it's cap space into one guy, who quite frankly isn't playing up to the money he's already getting paid?


i'm pretty much done. You discuss this dude like he's your son. This organization is becoming a joke for producing ring less hall of famers.
_________________


Fellow Posters: I beg that you not misunderstand my level of arrogance. My handle is an implication of Dolphin study not necessarily Dolphin expertise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dolphinologist


Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 5593
Location: New York
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Russ57 wrote:
I think there are a lot of assumptions as to what Jake wants for money. He doesn't deserve to be the highest paid LT and I don't think he feels he does. However he certainly does deserve top ten money. Problem is top ten money is a pay cut for him. It is hard to swallow how a player can be a pro bowler every year and be expected to deserve a pay cut. In many ways both him and Miami are victims of the old pay scale.

Denver is going to have a problem with their LT too. Jake has done better in his four years than Clady has. We all know what Clady turned down.


This is so annoying ... I almost wish we had kept that run first, man blocking mauler offense, so i wouldn't have to read this crap.

Quote:
"Oh, our rookie QB is gonna get killed if we don't have JAKE LONG defending him"
"Wasn't it just a year ago that we all agreed he was the best LT in the NFL ? why on earth would you guys change your minds ?
"Blocking scheme / Shmocking scheme .... Who cares we need Jake Long @ Left tackle ... get rid of someone else."


Now all of a sudden intelligent adults can't comprehend putting together a team that fits the game plan while keeping the salary cap in mind. What a load of crap
_________________


Fellow Posters: I beg that you not misunderstand my level of arrogance. My handle is an implication of Dolphin study not necessarily Dolphin expertise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mercury22


Most Valuable Poster (1st Ballot)

Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 12823
Location: the 50 yard line
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, things are getting testy in here.


I've said all along that switching systems every couple of years does this. It can take solid players look shaky. It causes the team to send off a lot of talent for low trade value and it puts us back to zero in lots of positions.

While I am happy with the system we are moving towards, I will say there is nothing wrong with the system we had before. Look no further than the 49ers who are dominating the league with a bruising defense and a road grading offensive line who mauls the other teams into submission. We just didn't do it for as long as they have, and we quit and changed directions. Coach fundamentals, stick to a system and plug in talent while retaining your own. That's a recipe for success.

This bullcrap of changing systems causes us to turn a pro bowl player like Jake Long into something less than that. It causes us to ship stud WR's off to other teams for nothing. It makes us consider moves that make us worse in the short run, for hope in the future. Stick to something, and get better at it by adding not subtracting. That has been the reason we have sucked for so long.

Say what you want about Jake Long, but he is a top notch talent LT if he plays in the right system. I still think he should be allowed time in this system, but I see it does not suit his strength now. What is annoying, is that we even considered a system that would make Jake Long a consideration for release or trade. That is just really, really stupid.
_________________
"22 players are involved in every football play. To value precisely the activity of one of them, it is first necessary to account for the actions of the other 21"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ProudDolphan47


Moderator
Joined: 06 Dec 2007
Posts: 5626
Location: Lancaster, PA
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This conversation is entirely too much about how well Jake Long fits into this system and not nearly enough about just how frequently he stays healthy and his seeming inability to maintain 100% health. Would you give an injury prone RB top dollar? No. So then just because Jake is on the field despite being injured, why should you pay HIM top dollar?
_________________
-Proud 2011 Inductee to FF's Miami Dolphins RoH

Warpticon wrote:
I think Mike Wallace made a mistake because *throws turd at wall*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dolphinologist


Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 5593
Location: New York
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mercury22 wrote:
Wow, things are getting testy in here.


I've said all along that switching systems every couple of years does this. It can take solid players look shaky. It causes the team to send off a lot of talent for low trade value and it puts us back to zero in lots of positions.

While I am happy with the system we are moving towards, I will say there is nothing wrong with the system we had before. Look no further than the 49ers who are dominating the league with a bruising defense and a road grading offensive line who mauls the other teams into submission. We just didn't do it for as long as they have, and we quit and changed directions. Coach fundamentals, stick to a system and plug in talent while retaining your own. That's a recipe for success.

This bullcrap of changing systems causes us to turn a pro bowl player like Jake Long into something less than that. It causes us to ship stud WR's off to other teams for nothing. It makes us consider moves that make us worse in the short run, for hope in the future. Stick to something, and get better at it by adding not subtracting. That has been the reason we have sucked for so long.

Say what you want about Jake Long, but he is a top notch talent LT if he plays in the right system. I still think he should be allowed time in this system, but I see it does not suit his strength now. What is annoying, is that we even considered a system that would make Jake Long a consideration for release or trade. That is just really, really stupid.


I gotta ask ... which one of our previous coaches do you think we should have held onto ? Or would you replace them with coaches who ran similar if not the same systems ?
_________________


Fellow Posters: I beg that you not misunderstand my level of arrogance. My handle is an implication of Dolphin study not necessarily Dolphin expertise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phinmun


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 2231
Location: South Carolina
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right now it's a tough call. It's not clear cut. Me and Doc can be on the verge of reaching through the screen at each other but I see his point. He's makes a really good one.

I just don't know if we could afford to lose Jake Long given how bad our Guards are. I think we should at least think about retaining Jake Long just to have some stability. Merc also makes a great point about how irritating it is to lose players that we know are talented and are not the problem.

We keep reaching forward and promising ourselves that we're going to develop in the future but at some point there's also realism and being able to be satisfied with a player like Jake Long who may not be perfect but provides a lot of solidarity to an offensive line that already has 2 glaring supernovas of crap-dom at right and left guard.

I really hope Jake Long starts playing well enough that we can all agree to resign him. I just hate the idea that we're going to take another step back just so that we can 'hope' something good happens later.

Good teams don't do that. Now, I'll agree that they don't pay the wrong players boatloads of money but they also don't let good players go without having a plan in place that makes the team better.

I just worry that 2 or 3 years down the road, when Jake Long is an Eagle or Bear or Jet that we'll be wishing we had retained him because we found a LT who was average and had to delay getting rid of Incognito and Jerry.

If I could agree that it was possible to clear it out and fix it in one fell swoop I would but I just don't trust that plan to put Tannehill's development on the line.

I don't know. Nobody's got enough evidence to do anything more than argue right now because where there is evidence for change there is no clear alternative path and where there is the argument for consistency, there's a lack of performance. This is just something that will have to sort itself out by what we see and find out this season.


Last edited by phinmun on Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phinmun


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 2231
Location: South Carolina
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dolphinologist wrote:
Mercury22 wrote:
Wow, things are getting testy in here.


I've said all along that switching systems every couple of years does this. It can take solid players look shaky. It causes the team to send off a lot of talent for low trade value and it puts us back to zero in lots of positions.

While I am happy with the system we are moving towards, I will say there is nothing wrong with the system we had before. Look no further than the 49ers who are dominating the league with a bruising defense and a road grading offensive line who mauls the other teams into submission. We just didn't do it for as long as they have, and we quit and changed directions. Coach fundamentals, stick to a system and plug in talent while retaining your own. That's a recipe for success.

This bullcrap of changing systems causes us to turn a pro bowl player like Jake Long into something less than that. It causes us to ship stud WR's off to other teams for nothing. It makes us consider moves that make us worse in the short run, for hope in the future. Stick to something, and get better at it by adding not subtracting. That has been the reason we have sucked for so long.

Say what you want about Jake Long, but he is a top notch talent LT if he plays in the right system. I still think he should be allowed time in this system, but I see it does not suit his strength now. What is annoying, is that we even considered a system that would make Jake Long a consideration for release or trade. That is just really, really stupid.


I gotta ask ... which one of our previous coaches do you think we should have held onto ? Or would you replace them with coaches who ran similar if not the same systems ?


That's not directed at me but just to be annoying I'll say that I don't think Tony Sparano had the answers. I don't think he was qualified to be a Head Coach.

While Cam Cameron was qualified, I don't think he had the vision, confidence and overall sense that Philbin does. I respect what Cameron's done as a coordinator but his offense need a good QB, an elite RB and some deep threats.

I was a Ginn supporter and a Satele supporter but overall Cameron just lost the locker room. Either it was the wrong place, wrong time with him or he simply was out of his depth in trying to assume the role of HC in charge of a rebuilding team. I actually wouldn't bet against Cam Cameron coaching a solid team like the Ravens. I think he could take them from being a defensive power to a more balanced or even offensively-driven team as HC.

I think attempting to take over in Miami was a mistake though on both sides. He didn't have all the answers. Maybe it was Randy Mueller. I don't know but I just remember feeling really awkward and often ill-prepared in that season. I don't blame him for 1-15. We lost way too many close games and way too many important players but there was no 'magic' in how he assumed his position.

Philbin seems to have taken baby steps and got us walking in the right direction where as I got the sense that Cameron wanted to run as soon as possible. Practically all of that 2007 draft was offense. It was a huge reach taking a WR first (although ironically I wish now we still had him now) and while we did address the O-line with Satele, we drafted a QB and a RB before we got too deep into that draft. Clearly, Cameron had offense on his mind and thought that the core of the team was solid enough to work with.


I don't mind sucking for awhile if you prove to me that you know what you're doing. I've always said that just watching games is what I enjoy. Shut up with all the Super Bowl or bust nonsense. I just want to root for a good team! I don't think it's impossible to be competitive in this league from the onset and this year has proven that. This was as dreary and upset as I've seen the fanbase in as long as I can remember but now we're all ecstatic and expecting 3-3 before the bye.

Winning and competing is a mentality as much as anything. Some coaches can build that. Hell, Sparano did but I don't think he had the answers to work in the long haul. He was a great coach for where we were.

Philbin is a guy that I think can get us where we're going. My biggest worry was that he'd never get the chance to coach a competitive team. That killed Cameron. Well, Cam never got over the hump but Philbin already has.


Last edited by phinmun on Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fender


Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 904
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dolphinologist wrote:
Mercury22 wrote:
Wow, things are getting testy in here.


I've said all along that switching systems every couple of years does this. It can take solid players look shaky. It causes the team to send off a lot of talent for low trade value and it puts us back to zero in lots of positions.

While I am happy with the system we are moving towards, I will say there is nothing wrong with the system we had before. Look no further than the 49ers who are dominating the league with a bruising defense and a road grading offensive line who mauls the other teams into submission. We just didn't do it for as long as they have, and we quit and changed directions. Coach fundamentals, stick to a system and plug in talent while retaining your own. That's a recipe for success.

This bullcrap of changing systems causes us to turn a pro bowl player like Jake Long into something less than that. It causes us to ship stud WR's off to other teams for nothing. It makes us consider moves that make us worse in the short run, for hope in the future. Stick to something, and get better at it by adding not subtracting. That has been the reason we have sucked for so long.

Say what you want about Jake Long, but he is a top notch talent LT if he plays in the right system. I still think he should be allowed time in this system, but I see it does not suit his strength now. What is annoying, is that we even considered a system that would make Jake Long a consideration for release or trade. That is just really, really stupid.


I gotta ask ... which one of our previous coaches do you think we should have held onto ? Or would you replace them with coaches who ran similar if not the same systems ?
Maybe it's just the honeymoon period but I'd keep philbin over Long as much as I 'love' him without thinking twice. Im sold on what he's doing with this team right now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carlos2104


Joined: 25 Feb 2007
Posts: 1677
Location: Illinois
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

xXxHOUSEDxXx wrote:
They only way I could get on the trade Jake Long bandwagon is if we find out he isn't planning on resigning with us. From what you've explained, Jake Long isn't the ideal fit in the blocking scheme we currently run - that's fine. Jake provides so much more to this team than just his on-field play. He's well respected and can get on guys if they're dogging it, he provides consistency with both his play and the fact that he's one of the few guys that have been here multiple years, and he's a leader in the locker room. We're a young team that is showing growth for the first time in a decade. I don't think losing one of our best players on and off the field is the best move in the long-term interest of the franchise.
I'm surprised, but I completely agree with Housed on this one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
xXxHOUSEDxXx


Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 4951
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

carlos2104 wrote:
xXxHOUSEDxXx wrote:
They only way I could get on the trade Jake Long bandwagon is if we find out he isn't planning on resigning with us. From what you've explained, Jake Long isn't the ideal fit in the blocking scheme we currently run - that's fine. Jake provides so much more to this team than just his on-field play. He's well respected and can get on guys if they're dogging it, he provides consistency with both his play and the fact that he's one of the few guys that have been here multiple years, and he's a leader in the locker room. We're a young team that is showing growth for the first time in a decade. I don't think losing one of our best players on and off the field is the best move in the long-term interest of the franchise.
I'm surprised, but I completely agree with Housed on this one.


You should try agreeing with me more often.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Miami Dolphins All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 4 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group